The Mediating Role of Psychological Contract Breach in the Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Quiet Quitting Among Coaches

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5310220/v1

Background: The research is intended to clarify the relationship among leader-member exchange (LMX) quiet quitting and psychological contract breach variables grounded in social exchange theory which explains the motivations individuals exhibit in reciprocal relationships. Additionally it seeks to elucidate the mediating function of psychological contract breach in the association between LMX and quiet quitting.

Methods: The research model was evaluated using regression and mediation analyses on data obtained from 294 coaches.

Results: The research findings indicate that LMX diminishes the perception of psychological contract breach. This finding indicates that coaches with robust LMX will experience diminished perceptions of psychological contract breach subsequently reducing their quiet quitting behaviors.

Ethics approval number: 244222 date of registration: 17/11/2023

Conclusion: LMX adversely impacts psychological contract breach and quiet quitting whereas psychological contract breach positively influences quiet quitting. Furthermore the perception of psychological contract breach mediates the relationship between LMX and quiet quitting.

Psychological Contract Breach

Leader

Member Exchange

Quiet Quitting Coach

This study utilizes social exchange theory a widely employed framework for analyzing diverse organizational relationships with a primary emphasis on the interactions between employers and employees. Individuals typically pursue greater benefits and reduced costs in interactions and social exchange theory offers guidance for businesses to mitigate competitive conflicts stemming from employee interests striving for mutual gains through reciprocal social exchanges [1]. Social exchange theory asserts that interactions between employers and employees encompass both psychological and economic exchanges. Psychological exchanges encompass intangible rewards including personal reputation and relationships with significant individuals whereas economic exchanges consist of tangible rewards such as financial returns promotions and material benefits offered by the organization. Consequently, social exchange theory posits that employees' decision-making processes concerning their behaviors stem from social exchange [2].

The LMX theory is derived from the principles of 'reciprocity' 'social exchange' 'similarity-attraction' and 'role'. Reciprocity argues that employees are inclined to reciprocate the preferential treatment they receive from their managers by exceeding their formal job responsibilities. The norm of reciprocity dictates that when one individual treats another favorably a reciprocal positive response is required Social exchange denotes the beneficial dyadic relationship between employees and managers. This social exchange entails subordinates endeavoring to attain outcomes anticipated by their managers that exceed their job descriptions and responsibilities frequently outside of work hours or the workplace. Similarity-attraction posits that employees engage in more favorable interactions with individuals who share similar characteristics. The roles designated to employees delineate the anticipated behaviors concerning the leader and the manner in which the leader expects them to engage with one another [3].

Quiet quitting behavior characterized by employees' minimal engagement in performing solely designated tasks while eschewing responsibilities beyond their job descriptions [4] is influenced by the quality and variability of LMX positive actions from the leader foster a sense of obligation among employees to reciprocate through diligent work whereas adverse circumstances reduce employees' propensity to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, constructive interactions between leaders and members foster favorable sentiments towards the leader encouraging members to fulfill the leader's work expectations [5]. Psychological contract breach a subjective phenomenon is characterized by the perception that another party has failed to sufficiently meet promised obligations [6]. Robust LMX relationships can shield employees from the detrimental effects of psychological contract breach [7].

Recent studies focus on the phenomenon of quiet quitting commonly observed in employee behavior attributed to the active participation of Generation Y in the workforce shifts in work patterns post-COVID-19 pandemic and the heightened emphasis individuals place on work/life balance. The study aims to determine if variations in LMX or subpar LMX influence the occurrence of quiet quitting behavior and whether a breach of the psychological contract mediates this relationship.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

The emphasis of LMX pertains to the quality of the dyadic relationship that evolves between leaders and employees. LMX is among the earliest systematic leadership theories that incorporates employees into the leadership process. This theory primarily emphasizes the reciprocal exchange between the leader and the manager while also highlighting the significance of cultivating and sustaining the quality of their ongoing relationship. High-quality relationships correlate with favorable work-related outcomes including employee satisfaction commitment performance and citizenship behavior [8]. The differential development of LMX with each employee coupled with leaders' involvement in diverse social exchanges with their members leads to the establishment of relationships of differing quality between leaders and their subordinates. As a result, this leads to fluctuations in factors such as task performance, organizational citizenship performance, motivation, trust and satisfaction [5].

Christian [9] and Tapper [10] characterized the phenomenon of quiet quitting as employees executing their responsibilities at a minimal standard. Consequently, quiet quitting is characterized as employees conserving their personal capabilities by operating at a minimal level within the workplace [11]. Quiet quitting is perceived not as a method for employees to vacate their roles but as a means to reassess and reallocate their time and priorities. Quiet quitting can be understood through the framework of "equity theory" wherein employees assess their contributions to a workplace relationship by evaluating inputs (such as effort, time and resources) against the outputs they receive (including salary, social benefits, and autonomy) in relation to a peer or employer. Equity theory posits that employees strive for parity in their input-output ratios when making such comparisons. Consequently, to attain equity employees may seek to augment outputs diminish inputs or opt for alternative methods such as quiet quitting instead of departing from the organization [12].

Quiet quitting behavior characterized by employees discreetly disengaging from their roles or organizations, is intricately linked to social exchange theory. Social exchange theory posits that workplace interactions entail reciprocal exchanges in which individuals allocate time, effort and resources, anticipating equitable returns. Quiet quitting, indicative of diminished trust and commitment while conforming to social justice principles, illustrates how employees disengage when they sense a disparity between their contributions and rewards (reciprocity), frequently stemming from perceived inequities in workload, compensation, or recognition (perceived fairness). Consequently, it corresponds with social exchange theory, emphasizing the significance of sustaining equitable and mutually advantageous workplace relationships [2].

Research on quiet quitting behavior, which has gained prominence following the COVID-19 pandemic, indicates that this phenomenon has been influenced by individual and generational disparities among employees, experiences of burnout workplace harassment the escalating significance of work-life balance, LMX dynamics, and diminished motivation [13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20].

The employee-organization relationship is fundamentally based on a psychological contract that encompasses shared beliefs regarding the obligations of both parties. Employees frequently perceive that their organizations or managers do not sufficiently honor this contract. This perception diminishes subordinates' trust, decreases job satisfaction, adversely impacts their intention to remain with the organization, and may result in quiet quitting behavior.

Organizations have fundamental obligations towards their employees, including prioritizing job security, providing ample opportunities for employee participation in decision-making, ensuring adequate career development, facilitating access to health services, fostering a sense of responsibility, offering sufficient training opportunities, delivering appropriate bonuses and retirement benefits, and extending managerial support for both work-related and personal issues [21].

Robinson and Morrison [22] identified two primary factors contributing to psychological contract breach: reneging and incongruence. Reneging transpires when the organization or its managers recognize their responsibilities to employees yet intentionally neglect to fulfill these commitments. Incongruence occurs when employees and the organization or management possess divergent perceptions regarding the existence or nature of a particular obligation. Both incongruence and reneging generate a disparity between the employee's understanding of the promised terms and their perception of the actual events resulting in a belief of contract breach.

A psychological contract breach occurs when an organization fails to meet one or more obligations to an employee, leading to emotional responses such as disappointment, frustration, anger, resentment, and bitterness, along with behavioral consequences like diminished organizational citizenship, reduced commitment, satisfaction, and trust [23].

2.1 The Correlation Between Leader-Member Exchange and Quiet Quitting

Investigations into the potential effects of leadership conduct on the emergence and persistence of quiet quitting underscore the considerable impact leaders can exert on this behavior Lowisz [24], Highlighted the influence of leaders on quiet quitting behavior and identifies three critical errors made by leaders that diminish employee performance and propel them towards quiet quitting. The first issue is the inability to cultivate robust relationships with employees, the second is the failure to comprehend what drives their motivation and the third is the expectation that employees will perform optimally for the company without demonstrating genuine concern for their well-being. These errors may impede employee engagement and result in quiet quitting behavior. DePrisco [25] examined the influence of leadership on quiet quitting behavior and identifies critical leadership practices to mitigate this phenomenon. These behaviors encompass prompt and clear communication, participatory decision-making, task allocation aligned with employees' competencies, fostering their professional growth, and exemplifying appropriate conduct. Brownlee [26] examined leadership strategies to mitigate quiet quitting. A separate study revealed that task-oriented leadership behaviors exacerbate quiet quitting, while people-oriented leadership behaviors mitigate it [27].

The quality of the relationship between the leader and the member significantly influences employees' responses, in addition to leaders' behaviors. Adverse leadership conduct and suboptimal leader-member relationship quality detrimentally impact subordinates' well-being and behavior, leading to heightened emotional exhaustion and silence behavior [28]. Consequently to assess the impact of LMX on quiet quitting, the subsequent hypothesis has been formulated:

H1: LMX has an adverse impact on quiet quitting behavior.

2.2 The Correlation Between LMX and Psychological Contract Breach

Kunze and Philip [29] determined in their research that the emotional aspects of employees' personalities impact LMX subsequently influencing psychological contract breach.. Superior LMX can safeguard employees from the detrimental effects of psychological contract breach [7] Nonetheless, various studies yielded disparate findings concerning the impact of LMX on psychological contract breach Casimir et al [30] discovered that high-quality LMX mitigates psychological contract breach, while Restubog et al [31] reached a contrary conclusion asserting that high-quality LMX exacerbates the adverse effects of psychological contract breach. These studies which mainly assess the overall impact of psychological contract breach on social exchange relationships, [22] can possibly conflate psychological contract breach with other constructs such as social support justice and equity.

Bal Hofmans and Polat [32] defined psychological contract breach as a cognitive evaluation of what a volunteer has obtained or failed to obtain at a specific moment. This theoretical framework combined with the dynamic and interconnected nature of psychological contract breach, as well as recent discussions on the emotions tied to breach and their negative effects, [33-30] suggests that a dynamic and process-oriented methodology could be applied to examine (1) the repercussions of breach-related emotions and (2) the role of these emotions as a precursor to psychological contract breach [34].

From an alternative viewpoint LMX is regarded as a type of social support that can mitigate the impact of adverse work experiences. Employees with robust relationships with leaders may respond more intensely to breaches of the psychological contract. Consequently, a social support perspective posits that LMX mitigates the adverse effects of psychological contract breach on employee performance, whereas a betrayal perspective contends that high-quality LMX may intensify these detrimental effects [31-35].

Doden et al [36] underscored the necessity of comprehending the mechanisms that exacerbate the adverse effects of psychological contract breaches in business evaluations LMX can function as both a mitigator and an amplifier in the breach-outcome relationship contingent upon employees' career orientations. Doden [36] asserted that employees' responses to their leaders' support vary according to the degree of their career affiliation with the organization Their research indicated that employees' career orientations warrant more careful consideration, as their reactions to social exchange may differ accordingly [36].

Despite the organization's failure to meet its commitments (at least temporarily), a robust LMX can persuade employees that pending tasks will eventually be accomplished Previous research indicated that LMX significantly influences individuals' reactions to breaches of the psychological contract. In this context, superior LMX offers employees assistance in managing the psychological repercussions of their employers' (organizations') failure to meet specific commitments [37]. Consequently, the subsequent hypothesis has been formulated to assess the impact of LMX on the perception of psychological contract breach:

H2: The LMX adversely influences the perception of psychological contract breach.

2.3 The Correlation Between Psychological Contract Breach and Quiet Quitting

Turnley and Feldman [21] proposed that when psychological contracts are violated at the managerial or administrative level providing employee incentives to restore trust in the organization can mitigate quiet quitting and diminish the decline in employee performance. These incentives may encompass monetary rewards, tangible goods, services, information, or social status [38]. Primarily, delivering prompt, precise, and thorough information to employees while actively mitigating uncertainties, particularly during organizational change, diminishes the perception of a breach in the psychological contract and lowers the likelihood of quiet quitting both collectively and individually [39]. According to Bell and Kennebrew, [20] a psychological contract refers to the implicit trust and expectations individuals hold towards one another. Trust is the susceptibility we encounter when relying on the actions, promises, and commitments of others; it reflects an individual's credibility in influencing the culture and environment within the organization.

Managers possess expectations of employees, while employees hold expectations of managers. Managers primarily anticipate that employees will exhibit honesty, perform equitable work for appropriate compensation, and refrain from exploiting privileges. Conversely, employees anticipate their managers to exhibit fairness and empathy. Globalization and technological advancements have accelerated the pace of business, necessitating that companies, skillfully establish new psychological contracts that are mutually advantageous rather than perceived as solely beneficial to the organization. Therefore, when psychological contracts are violated, maintaining a high level of trust in the leader-member relationship essential for employee retention becomes difficult. To maintain a productive workforce, businesses must prioritize the effective support and management of psychological contracts.

Turnley and Feldman [21] proposed providing employee incentives to restore trust in the organization and avert quiet quitting when psychological contracts are violated at the managerial or administrative level. These incentives may encompass monetary rewards, tangible goods, services, information, or social status. Providing employees with timely, accurate, and comprehensive information, while proactively reducing uncertainties especially during organizational changes and addressing any perceived breaches of the psychological contract, can greatly reduce the chances of quiet quitting both within teams and at an individual level [39]. Consequently, the following hypothesis has been formulated to assess the impact of perceived psychological contract breach on quiet quitting behavior:

H3: The perception of a breach in the psychological contract positively influences quiet quitting behavior.

2.4 The Mediating Effect of Psychological Contract Breach on the Relationship Between LMX and Quiet Quitting

Based on the aforementioned theoretical framework it can be asserted that a superior LMX can mitigate the perception of psychological contract breach and the phenomenon of quiet quitting. Social exchange theory [40] posited that motivation in the leader-subordinate relationship derives from reciprocal positive communication. Subordinates who receive positive treatment and fairness might cultivate a high-quality exchange relationship and respond with positive behaviors and enhanced performance [41]. Despite organizations failing to meet their commitments to employees regarding economic, contractual, and regulatory obligations, a robust LMX can psychologically empower employees and foster optimistic future expectations [37].

An examination of the pertinent literature reveals that perceived psychological contract breach results in adverse organizational outcomes, including diminished job satisfaction, [42] increased turnover intention [37] reduced task performance, [43] and decreased organizational citizenship behavior [22]. Quiet quitting characterized by a deliberate reduction in workplace performance, serves as a precursor to actual turnover and represents a negative workplace behavior that employees may display in response to perceived breaches of the psychological contract. The research by Chen and Wu [37] revealed that psychological contract breach partially mediates the connection between LMX and turnover intention. The literature review indicates that the perception of psychological contract breach mediates the relationship between LMX and quiet quitting. The subsequent hypothesis has been formulated to ascertain the mediating influence of perceived psychological contract breach on the relationship between LMX and quiet quitting behavior:

H4: The perception of a breach in the psychological contract mediates the influence of LMX on quiet quitting behavior.

The research model and hypotheses to be examined are illustrated in Figure 1, according to the aforementioned theoretical framework.

3.1 Research Population and Sample

The study's population comprises 316,776 coaches possessing coaching competence in Turkey (Ministriy of Youth and Sport 2024) [44]. Owing to temporal and financial limitations, a convenience sampling method was favored in the study A survey conducted online as part of the study was administered to the participants Of the participants 353 submitted responses while 55 were omitted from the analysis due to control questions The research analysis was conducted using the 294 data points collected from the participants Given that 29 items were employed to assess the research variables (psychological contract breach-9 LMX-12 quiet quitting-8) with N=294; q=29; the calculation N/q=294/29=10.14 was performed revealing that the N/q value satisfies the criterion of falling within the 10-20 range [45]. Consequently the sample size was considered adequate for the analyses.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Variable	Sample = 294 (%)	Variable	Sample = 294 (%)
*Gender*		*Employed Institution*
Female	30.6	Within YSC	41.2
Male	69.4	Within Clubs	34.0
*Age*		Within Private Enterprises	24.8
18-30	36.1	*Working Time*
31-35	25.2	5 and below	34.7
36-40	17.3	6-10	34.0
41 and Above	21.4	11-15	19.7
*Education*		16-20	7.1
High School	7.8	21 and below	4.4
Associate Degree	5.8	*Income*
Undergraduate	67.7	17000 and below	21.4
Postgraduate	18.7	17001-25000	29.9
*Marital Status*		25001-33000	22.8
Single	44.6	33001-41000	14.3
Married	55.4	41001 and above	11.6

Table 1 delineates the demographic characteristics of the study sample In this regard it was established that 69.4% of the participants were female 36.1% were aged 18-30 67.7% possessed a bachelor's degree 55.4% were married 41.2% were employed in the GSM sector 347% had five years or less of work experience and 29.9% earned an income between 17,001 and 25,000 (Turkish Liras).

3.2 Instruments for collecting data

Psychological Contract Breach

The "Psychological Contract Breach" scale, created by Robinson and Rousseau [43] and subsequently adapted into Turkish by Örücü and Bayramov [46], was employed to assess employees' psychological contract breach This scale comprises nine items and is is considered unidimensional. Participants' responses were assessed utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree). An illustrative item from the scale is: “The organization I work for has honored its commitments concerning my personal training and development.” The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the psychological contract breach scale was determined to be 0,95 which is sufficient in terms of validity and reliability.

Leader-Member Interaction

The " LMX" scale, created by Liden and Maslyn [47] and subsequently adapted into Turkish by Türker et al. [48], was utilized to assess leader-member interaction. The scale consists four dimensions (impact, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect), each containing three items resulting in a total of twelve items. Participants' responses were assessed utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) An illustrative item from the scale is: “My supervisor is sufficiently commendable to be a potential friend.” The Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the dimensions of leader-member interaction were: impact: 0.95; loyalty: 0.92; contribution: 0.90; and professional respect: 0.94 The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the comprehensive leader-member interaction scale was determined to be 0.96.

Quiet Quitting

The "Quiet Quitting" scale created by Anand et al. [12] was employed to assess employees' quiet quitting. The scale, initially in English, was translated into Turkish employing the translation-back translation method [49], and expert evaluations were solicited to assess content validity. A pilot study involving 66 participants was executed to ascertain the clarity of the items. Upon completion of these steps, the scale was finalized. The Quiet Quitting scale comprises eight items. Participants' responses were assessed utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree). An illustrative item from the scale is: “I perceive a lack of adequate learning and development opportunities within my organization.” The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the Quiet Quitting scale was determined to be 0.87. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to assess construct validity The EFA results demonstrated that the scale was associated with two dimensions. exhibiting factor loadings between 0.72 and 0.86 The explained variance was determined to be 67.92%.

3.3 Preparation of Data for Analysis

Preliminary tests were conducted to prepare the data for subsequent analysis. Initially responses to a control question intended to evaluate participants' attention were assessed, resulting in the removal of 55 survey datasets with incorrect answers from the dataset. Subsequently, outlier detection was conducted on the remaining 294 surveys by analyzing z-values. The standardized z-scores for the research variables ranged from -2.98 to +3.62. Outliers with z-values within the ±4 range were analyzed, revealing no outliers to exclude from the data set [50].

The Skewness and Kurtosis values of the variables were analyzed to ascertain whether the research data adhered to a normal distribution. The analysis revealed that the skewness and kurtosis values for LMX (-061; -026), quiet quitting (0.55; -0.18) and psychological contract breach (0.36; -0.77) scales fell within the ±3 range, signifying a normal distribution [51]. Thereafter, regression analysis was performed to identify potential multicollinearity issues among the variables, and VIF (Variance Inflation Factors) CI (Condition Index) and TV (Tolerance Value) were computed The analysis indicated VIF values ranged from 1.23 to 1.75, CI values ranged from 4.24 to 16.55, and TV values ranged from 0.57 to 0.89, demonstrating the absence of multicollinearity issues.

Ultimately, gathering data from a singular source simultaneously, known as cross-sectional analysis, may result in common method bias issues. Harman's single factor test was employed to assess common method bias. A common method bias issue is suggested if a singular factor arises or if the overall variance accounted for by a general factor exceeds 50% [52]. Exploratory Factor Analysis encompassing all items in the research model yielded a three-factor structure, with the initial factor accounting for 33.42% of the total variance. As this value is below 50%, it signifies the absence of common method bias in the dataset.

3.4 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Measurement Model

To evaluate the construct validity of the scales employed in the study, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed utilizing the AMOS 16 software. To evaluate the alignment between the research model and the dataset, all items pertaining to the three variables were incorporated into the analysis concurrently. According to the theoretical framework, LMX was examined using a second-order four-factor structure (Impact, Loyalty, Contribution, and Professional Respect), quiet quitting was assessed with a two-factor structure, and psychological contract breach was evaluated with a first-order single-factor structure. CFA results demonstrated that every item in the scales must possess a factor loading of no less than 0.50 [53]. In the CFA results, three items from the Quiet Quitting scale with low factor loadings (<0.50) were systematically eliminated, and CFA was conducted again. The elimination of these items resulted in the Quiet Quitting variable transforming into a unidimensional construct. Modifications were implemented to the Quiet Quitting scale and two items in the Psychological Contract Breach scale to enhance fit indices, resulting in the acquisition of fit indices for the final measurement model. The fit indices (χ²=648.652; df=289; χ²/df=2.244; p=0.000; IFI=0.954; TLI=0.948; CFI=0.954; NFI=0.920; RMSEA=0.065) indicated that certain indices fell within the good fit range, whereas others were categorized in the acceptable fit range [54].

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for the Measurement Model

Psychological Contract Breach	Factor Loading
AVE: 0,69 CR: 0,95 α: 0,95
PSC 1	0,782
PSC 2	0,765
PSC 3	0,805
PSC 4	0,883
PSC 5	0,773
PSC 6	0,897
PSC 7	0,880
PSC 8	0,898
PSC 9	0,829
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE
AVE: 0,82 CR: 0,98 α: 0,96
Affect (α: 095)
LMX 1	0,923
LMX 2	0,932
LMX 3	0,949
Loyalty (α: 0,92)
LMX 4	0,890
LMX 5	0,927
LMX 6	0,890
Contribution (α: 0,90)
LMX 7	0,865
LMX 8	0,872
LMX 9	0,888
Professional Respect (α: 0,94)
LMX 10	0,866
LMX 11	0,955
LMX 12	0,947
QUIET QUITTING
AVE: 0,56 CR: 0,86 α: 0,87
*QQ 1	---
*QQ 2	---
*QQ 3	---
QQ 4	0,817
QQ 5	0,891
QQ 6	0,638
QQ 7	0,645
QQ 8	0,725

Note: * Items removed from the analysis because the factor loading was small at 0.50 / Standardized coefficients are reported in the table.

To illustrate the convergent validity of the scales, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values were computed as per the guidelines of [55] and are displayed in Table 2. The AVE values were determined to be 0.50 or greater and the CR values were found to be 0.70 or greater [53]. The results demonstrate that the scales have attained convergent validity. The reliability of the scales was assessed using the Cronbach Alpha (α) coefficient with reliability values for each variable exceeding the generally accepted threshold of 0.70 [56] as indicated in Table 2.

4.1 Results of Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Table 3. presents the results of the correlation analysis which examines the direction and strength of the relationships among the research variables along with their average values. Table 3 indicates a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.63) between LMX and psychological contract breach, a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.31) between quiet quitting and psychological contract breach and a weak negative correlation (r = -0.26) between quiet quitting and LMX, all of which are statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Table 3: Results of Correlation Analysis and Descriptive Statistics

	1	2	3
1 Psychological Contract Breach	(0,830)
2 Leader-Member Exchange	-,635**	(0,905)
3 Quiet Quitting	,321**	-,265**	(0,748)
Mean	2,69	3,42	2,25
Std Dev	1,10	1,05	0,98

Notes: **p < 0,01 The square roots of AVEs are presented in bold font within parentheses.

The square roots of the AVE values were computed to illustrate the discriminant validity of the scales, as advised by Fornell and Larcker [55], and are displayed in Table 3. The square root of the AVE for each scale exceeding the correlation coefficients signifies the attainment of discriminant validity.

4.2 Results Pertaining to Research Hypotheses

The research model examined the impact of LMX on quiet quitting as well as the mediating influence of breach of psychological contract in this relationship utilizing the Process Macro add-on for SPSS, specifically Model 4 [57]. The Bootstrap method, utilizing 5000 resamples, was employed in hypothesis testing to determine the lower and upper limits of a 95% confidence interval. The exclusion of zero from the confidence interval (CI) values indicates a significant effect [58]. Figure 2. displays the outcomes of the regression analyses.

Figure 2 demonstrates that LMX has a negative and significant impact on quiet quitting (b = -0.248, p < 0.01; CI = [-0.3522, -0.1443]) LMX accounts for 7% of the variance in quiet quitting (R² = 0.070). The influence of LMX on the breach of psychological contracts is both negative and significant (b = -0.667 p < 0.01; CI = [-0.7605 -0.5737]), with LMX explaining 40% of the variance in psychological contract breach (R² = 0.403). Moreover, psychological contract breach exerts a positive and significant influence on quiet quitting (b = 0.227 p < 0.01; CI = [0.1018, 0.3533]). The interaction between leader and member, along with the breach of the psychological contract, accounts for 10% of the variance in quiet quitting (R² = 0.109). The findings support hypotheses H1, H2, and H3.

The examination of the mediating function of breach of psychological contract illustrated in Figure 2 indicates that LMX exerts an indirect influence on quiet quitting via psychological contract breach (b = -0.151, 95% BCA CI = [-0.2429, -0.0641]). The direct impact of LMX on quiet quitting is insignificant (b = -0.096, p > 0.05; CI = [-0.2285, 0.0356]), suggesting that breach of psychological contract completely mediates this association. Consequently, the conclusive hypothesis H4 is likewise substantiated. This finding indicates that coaches with robust LMX will experience diminished perceptions of psychological contract breach subsequently reducing their quiet quitting behaviors.

This study primarily sought to empirically investigate the phenomenon of quiet quitting, which has recently garnered attention and is deemed significant for analysis regarding its causes consequences, and its interplay with LMX and psychological contract breaches. The mediating role of breach of psychological contract in the relationship between LMX and quiet quitting was subsequently analyzed. A study was conducted with employees involved in coaching, and a conceptual model was proposed. Comprehending the notion of quiet quitting, a novel term in organizational behavior recognizing its antecedents, and identifying its predictors are essential. No research was identified that investigates the correlation between LMX and quiet quitting, as well as the influence of breach of psychological contract on this correlation. Consequently, the findings of this study are deemed to enhance both theoretical frameworks and practical applications.

This study has theoretically advanced the literature on quiet quitting by illustrating that LMX adversely impacts quiet quitting. Research indicates that leadership behaviors can affect the occurrence of quiet quitting. Leaders who foster effective communication, employ motivational strategies, demonstrate concern for their employees, engage in democratic decision-making, and prioritize career development can mitigate quiet quitting [24-25]. Although numerous studies have theoretically elucidated this relationship, empirical research indicates that human-centered leadership styles diminish quiet quitting [27]. The findings of this study correspond with the sparse theoretical insights and make a substantial contribution to the literature. Practically, it is noted that coaches who cultivate strong relationships with their leaders are less prone to quiet quitting When institutional leaders cultivate robust relationships with coaches, they can enhance the coaches' commitment resulting in improved athlete development.

The research findings indicate that LMX diminishes the perception of psychological contract breach. The literature presents studies indicating that LMX mitigates the perception of breach of psychological contracts and its detrimental consequences from two distinct perspectives [7-37]. The prevalence of substandard interactions and contract breaches affects employees' intentions to depart, resulting in quiet quitting [59-60]. Leaders, being integral to the organization, may be perceived as accountable for the organization's contract breach as psychological contracts rely on mutual trust between the parties involved. Effective LMX can mitigate contract breach and avert their escalation into quiet quitting. The findings of this study correspond with existing literature and substantially advance theoretical development. Participants will find that coaches exhibiting robust LMX will perceive fewer breaches of psychological contracts within their organizations. Nonetheless, the inability to honor commitments and the lack of complete remuneration for their contributions will exacerbate the perception of psychological contract breach and its adverse consequences. Coaches who cultivate robust relationships with their leaders can transcend institutional deficiencies To prevent adverse attitudes and sustain optimal performance, it is crucial to prioritize the quality of LMX.

The study reveals that the perception of breach of psychological contract heightens quiet quitting behavior. Despite the examination of breach of psychological contracts in the literature regarding its causes and consequences, no study has investigated its relationship with the recently conceptualized phenomenon of quiet quitting. This study's interaction offers theoretical contributions to the literature on quiet quitting Institutions must acknowledge the significance of psychological contracts and implicit commitments to avert quiet quitting behaviors Given the significance of individual achievement and interpersonal dynamics within workgroups for coaches, institutional administrators must endeavor to retain effective and esteemed coaches.

This study has contributed that LMX influences quiet quitting via psychological contract breach. No studies were identified that investigate this sequential relationship among the research variables. This research finding elucidates the emergence of quiet quitting behavior through various factors, offering both theoretical and empirical contributions to the literature. Practically, strategies aimed at improving LMX and mitigating breaches of psychological contracts can assist institutions in deterring coaches from quiet quitting.

The primary limitation of the study is that the proposed research model was exclusively tested on coaches, potentially constraining the generalizability of the findings. To mitigate this limitation it is recommended that the model undergo testing across various sectors. Examining this research model in labor-intensive industries like healthcare and the service sector while accounting for working conditions and duration may yield significant insights into the literature on quiet quitting. Furthermore, to enhance the generalizability of the findings across diverse cultures, it is advisable to reevaluate the research model with participants from multiple nations. Moreover, the alterations in work and life resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have fundamentally transformed our perceptions of both work and life. Dissatisfaction with working conditions, compensation, management, and leadership has intensified during the pandemic [16]. Considering that the phenomenon of quiet quitting has become a substantial impediment to organizational health and efficacy it is recommended that the individual and organizational factors that contribute to quiet quitting be examined. It is advisable to investigate the influence of individual factors, including personality traits, self-efficacy, psychological resilience, technostress, working conditions, salary, and leadership styles, on quiet quitting. This research employed psychological contract breach as a mediating variable. It is prudent to analyze how specific factors, such as personality traits influence the relationship between LMX and quiet quitting.

A further limitation of the study is that data was exclusively gathered through quantitative methods and survey techniques. The measurement instruments employed indicate personal assessments. It is recommended that LMX be evaluated from the managers' perspective, and comparative analyses be performed. Furthermore, the notion of quiet quitting, which is relatively novel in the literature, necessitates the creation of measurement instruments. Consequently, researchers focused on this topic are encouraged to create new scales that take into account the cultural dynamics of Turkish society. Furthermore, subsequent investigations into these variables could enhance the literature by employing both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.

Lu M, Al Mamun A, Chen X, Yang Q, Masukujjaman M. Quiet quitting during COVID-19: The role of psychological empowerment Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2023; 10(1): 1-16
Xueyun Z, Al Mamun A, Yang Q, Naznen F, Ali M H. Modeling quiet quitting intention among academics: Mediating effect of work addiction and satisfaction Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. 2024;1-37.
Jha S, Jha S. Leader-member exchange: A critique of theory & practice Journal of Management & Public Policy. 2013; 4(2) 42-53.
Harter J. Is Quiet Quitting Real? Gallup Inc September 6 https://wwwgallupcom/work place/398306/quiet-quitting-realaspx. 2022.
Martin R, Guillaume Y, Thomas G, Lee A, Epitropaki O. Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review Personnel psychology. 2016; 69(1): 67-121.
Robinson S L. Trust and breach of the psychological contract Administrative science quarterly. 1996; 574-599.
Hobfoll S E. The influence of culture community andthe nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservationof resources theory Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview. 2001; 50, 337-421.
Schyns B, Day D. Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement consensus and excellence European journal of work and organizational psychology.2010; 19(1):1-29.
Christian A. Why ‘quiet quitting’is nothing new Retrieved August. 2022; 20.
Tapper J. Quiet quitting: why doing the bare minimum at work has gone global The Guardian 2022; 6
Yıkılmaz İ. Quıet Quıttıng: A Conceptual Investıgatıon Anadolu 10th Internatıonal Conference On Socıal Scıence. 2022.
Anand A, Doll J, Ray P. Drowning in silence: a scale development and validation of quiet quitting and quiet firing International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2023; 1934-8835. DOI 101108/IJOA-01-2023-3600
Johnson J R. What’s New About Quiet Quitting (and What’s Not) The Transdisciplinary Journal of Management. 2023.
Serenko A. The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting: recommendations for employees, managers, and national policymakers", Journal of Knowledge Management.2024;28(1): 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2022-0792.
Engelmann J N. The Concept of Humble Leadership to Strengthen Employee Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic in an International Corporation in Germany (Doctoral dissertation Barry University). 2022.
Formica S, Sfodera F. The Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting paradigm shifts: An overview of current situation and future research directions Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. 2022; 31(8): 899-907.
Pevec N. The Concept of Identifying Factors of Quiet Quitting in Organizations: An Integrative Literature Review. 2023;128-147.
Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, Siskou O, Konstantakopoulou O, Katsoulas T, Kaitelidou D. The influence of job burnout on quiet quitting among nurses: the mediating effect of job satisfaction Res Sq. 2023.
Hamouche S, Koritos C, Papastathopoulos A. Quiet quitting: relationship with other concepts and implications for tourism and hospitality International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2023;35(12): 4297-4312.
Bell R, Kennebrew D. What Does Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Chester I Barnard Have to Do with Quiet Quitting? American Journal of Management. 2023; 23(1): 1-11.
Turnley W H, Feldman D C. Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management. 1998;37(1): 71-83.
Robinson SL, Morrison EW. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2000; 21(5): 525-546.
Pate J, Martin G, McGoldrick J. The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behaviour Employee relations. 2003;25(6): 557-573.
Lowisz S. Are Leaders to Blame for Quiet Quitting? Available on Are Leaders To Blame For Quiet Quitting? (forbescom). 2022.
DePrisco M. Leaders can stop quiet quitting – here’s how Available on https://qzcom/leaders-canstop-quiet-quitting-heres-how-1849756621. 2022.
Brownlee D. 4 Leadership Strategies To Address Quiet Quitting Available on https://wwwforbescom/sites/danabrownlee/2022/09/21/4-leadership-strategies-to-address-quiet-quitting/. 2022.
Bakotić D. Relatıonshıp Between Quıet Quıttıng And Leadershıp Orıentatıon: The Case Of Croatıan Employees In DIEM: Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting. Sveučilište u Dubrovniku, 2023; 8(1): 38-45.
Xu A J, Loi R, Lam L W, The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence The Leadership Quarterly. 2015; 26(5): 763-774.
Kunze M, Phillips J. The influence of employee affect on leader-member exchange and perceptions of psychological contract violation International Journal of Management and Marketing Research. 2011; 4(2): 1-23.
Casimir G, Ngee Keith Ng Y, Yuan Wang K, Ooi G. The relationships amongst leader-member exchange perceived organizational support affective commitment and in-role performance: A social-exchange perspective Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2014; 35(5): 366-385.
Restubog SLD, Bordia P, Tang RL, Krebs SA. Investigating the moderating effects of leader–member exchange in the psychological contract breach–employee performance relationship: A test of two competing perspectives British journal of management. 2010; 21(2): 422-437.
Bal M, Hofmans J, Polat T. Job experiences and psychological contract breach and violation: a weekly diary study In Paper presented at the 2nd Psychological Contract Meeting Canberra Australia. 2012.
Beal DJ, Weiss HM Barros E, MacDermid SM. An episodic process model of affective influences on performance Journal of Applied psychology. 2005; 90(6): 1054.
Griep Y, Vantilborgh T, Baillien E, Pepermans R. The mitigating role of leader‒member exchange when perceiving psychological contract violation: a diary survey study among volunteers European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2016; 25(2): 254-271.
Tziner A, Felea M, Vasiliu C. Psychological contract breach leader-member exchange perceived ethical climate and organisational justice: Are they interrelated and how? Journal of East European Management Studies. 2017; 63-82.
Doden W, Grote G, Rigotti T. Does leader–member exchange buffer or intensify detrimental reactions to psychological contract breach? The role of employees' career orientation Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018; 106: 192-208.
Chen TJ, Wu CM. Improving the turnover intention of tourist hotel employees: Transformational leadership leader-member exchange and psychological contract breach International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2017; 29(7): 1914-1936.
Foa EB, Foa UG. Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange In Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp 77-94) Boston MA: Springer US. 1980.
Chaudhry A, Wayne SJ, Schalk R. A sense making model of employee evaluation of psychological contract fulfillment: When and how do employees respond to change? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2009; (45): 498–520.
Blau P. Exchange and power in social Life New York: Wiley.1964.
Chen Z, Lam W, Zhong JA. Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(1): 202–212. doi:101037/0021-9010921202
Zhao H, Wayne SJ, Glibkowski BC, Bravo J. The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis Personnel Psychology. 2007; 60(3): 647-680.
Robinson S, Rousseau D. Violating the Psychological Contract: Not the Exception but the Norm Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1994; 15(3): 245-259.
https://shgmgsbgovtr/Sayfalar/175/105/Istatistikler (09/05/2024).
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed) Newyork: Guilford Publications. 2005.
Örücü E, Bayramov S As Factors Affecting Intention to Leave Work In Organizations; Psychological Contract Violation and Wage Satisfaction, Journal of Management and Economice Research, 2022; 20(1): 47-66. http://dxdoiorg/1011611/yead948800
Liden RC, Maslyn JM. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development, Journal of management. 1998; 24(1): 43-72.
Türker B, Keskin N ve Mert İ S. Leader Member Exchange (Lmx) Model and Validity and Reliability of Its Instrument In Turkish, Ege Academic View Journal, 2010; 10(3): 1013-1039.
Brislin RW. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural, Research Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970; 1(3): 185-216.
Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları Ankara: Pegem Akademi. 2018.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling Guilford publications. 2011.
Podsakoff PM, Mackenzıe SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal Of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879.
Hair JF, Jr Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis (7nd ed) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc. 2010.
Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları (1 Basım) Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. 2011.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39-50.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed) New York NY: McGraw-Hill. 1978.
Hayes AF. “Introduction to Mediation Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Based Approach” New York NY: The Guilford Press. 2013.
Mackinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the ındirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods, Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004; 39(1): 99-128. doi: 101207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Aggarwal U. Examining links between LMX job characteristics psychological contract breach and work engagement: An integrative perspective ANZAM. 2011; 1-29.
De Clercq D, Pereira R. I’m betrayed and I’m gone – unless organizational leaders convince me otherwise: Perceived contract breaches quitting intentions and leader-related resources, Africa Journal of Management. 2023; 9(3): 232–258. https://doiorg/101080/2332237320232232131

No competing interests reported.

The Mediating Role of Psychological Contract Breach in the Influence of Leader-Member Exchange on Quiet Quitting Among Coaches

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Fundamental Framework for the Concepts of LMX Quiet Quitting and Breach of Psychological Contract

Conceptual Relationships

Research Method

Results

Conclusion and Discussion

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1